Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency
| Citation | 249 F.3d 1032,346 U.S. App. D.C. 38 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1200,99-1200 |
| Parties | (D.C. Cir. 2001) Appalachian Power Company, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, et al., IntervenorsConsolidated with 99-1205, 99-1206, 99-1246, 99-1266, 99-1285, 99-1289, 99-1291, 99-1292, 99-1293, 99-1295, 99-1299, 99-1300, 99-1301, 99-1303, 99-1304, 99-1306, 99-1307, 00-1013, 00-1021, 00-1022, 00-1024, 00-1038, 00-1042, 00-1050, 00-1071, 00-1074, 00-1077, 00-1083, 00-1087, 00-1088, 00-1096, 00-1097, 00-1098, 00-1099, 00-1102, 00-1103, 00-1105, 00-1106, 00-1107, 00-1108, 00-1109, 00-1110, 00-1113, 00-1114, 00-1119, 00-1122, 00-1123, 00-1125, 00-1128 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Environmental Protection Agency
Norman W. Fichthorn, James C. Gulick, Special Deputy Attorney General, State of North Carolina, Lisa M. Jaeger, Brian J. Renaud and Anthony C. Sullivan argued the issues for petitioners. Counsel appearing with them on the briefs were Andrea Bear Field, Mel S. Schulze, James D. Elliott, Allison D. Wood, Grant Crandall, Eugene M. Trisko, Jeff F. Cherry, Kathy G. Beckett, Scott D. Goldman, David M. Flannery, Jeffrey J. Lettrich, Gale R. Lea, Charles S. Carter, Deborah Ann Hotel, Theodore L. Garrett, Michael D. Hockley, Terry W. Schackmann, Robert M. Sussman, Claudia M. O'Brien, Scott H. Segal, Charles E. Dunn, Rhonda Lee Ross, Robert L. Brubaker, Andrew S. Bergman, Alan H. McConnell, Kurt E. Blase, J. Jeffrey McNealey, Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, Grayson G. Kelley, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Ziko and J. Allen Jernigan, Special Deputy Attorneys General, Marc D. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, State of North Carolina, James M. Hauck, Gordon Alphonso, Stuart Pierson, Geoffrey K. Barnes, Scott T. Kragie, Lisa G. Dowden, Matthew W. Ward, Kathy G. Beckett, Scott Goldman, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Peter H. Schiff, Senior Counsel, J. Jared Snyder and Michael J. Myers, Assistant Attorneys General, State of New York, Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, William L. Pardee, Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, M. Dukes Pepper, Jr., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Alan F. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, State of Michigan, John G. Horne, II, Jack B. Bates, Susan Rose Green, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Bryan F. Zima, Assistant Attorney General, State of Ohio, Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Steward T. Leeth, Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General, Steven D. Griffin, Deputy Attorney General, State of Indiana, Thomas H. Zerbe, Office of Legal Services, State of West Virginia, Bill Pryor, Attorney General, Prudence A. Cash-Brown, Assistant Attorney General, State of Alabama. Thomas Y. Au and Gene E. Godley entered appearances.
David J. Kaplan, Norman L. Rave, Jr. and Scott Williams, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondents. With them on the briefs were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Alexandra Teitz, Howard Hoffman and Dwight C. Alpern, Attorneys, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Christopher S. Vaden, Attorney, entered an appearance.
William L. Pardee, Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, argued the cause for intervenors Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. and amicus curiae State of New Jersey. With him on the briefs were Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, J. Jared Snyder, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Richard F. Webb, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, M. Dukes Pepper, Jr., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Philip McLaughlin, Attorney General, Maureen D. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, State of New Hampshire, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Dianne H. Sanford, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, Sheldon Whitehouse, Attorney General, Tricia Jedele, Assistant Attorney General, State of Rhode Island, John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, Howard Geduldig, Deputy Attorney General, State of New Jersey. Roger L. Chaffe, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Ronald A. Shems, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, entered appearances.
Andrea Bear Field, Norman W. Fichthorn and Mel S. Schulze appeared on the brief of Appalachian Power Company, et al. as intervenors.
David W. Marshall, Ann Brewster Weeks and David G. Hawkins appeared on the brief of intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. Raissa Griffin entered an appearance.
David P. Novello was on the brief of the Electric Generator intervenors.
Before: Williams, Ginsburg and Sentelle, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.*
PER CURIAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND...............................................1036
A. Statutory Framework...................................1037
B. The NOx SIP Call..................................... 1037
C. The Original Section 126 Rule-Conditional Findings....1038
D. Revised Section 126 Rule-Final Findings...............1039
II. COMMON AND GENERAL ISSUES................................1040
A. Scrivener's Error.....................................1040
B. The NOx SIP Call and § 126............................1044
C. Significant Contribution..............................1048
D. Emission Limitation Determinations....................1051
1. Standard of Review.................................1051
2. The Integrated Planning Model......................1052
3. EGU Growth Factors.................................1053
4. Non-EGU Budget Determinations......................1055
5. Local Regulation and Permit Trading................1055
E. Regulation of "Future" Sources........................1056
F. The Dorris Report.....................................1058
III.NON-ELECTRIC GENERATING UNIT ISSUES......................1060
A. Alleged Budget Allocation Errors......................1060
B. Treatment of Cogenerators.............................1061
C. Source-Specific Issues................................1063
1. AK Steel Corporation.............................. 1063
2. New Boston Coke Corporation........................1064
IV. FACILITY-SPECIFIC ISSUES.................................1064
A. Midland Cogeneration Venture..........................1065
B. Indiana Municipal Power Agency........................1065
V. PITTSBURGH...............................................1066
VI. CONCLUSION...............................................1067
In response to petitions from several northeastern states that alleged that nitrogen oxide emitted in neighboring states was harming their local air quality, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a rule that requires many NOx emitting facilities in several midwestern and southeastern states to conform to emission limits set by the EPA and to participate in an emissions trading program. Numerous petitioners challenge the rule as inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, arbitrary and capricious, and technically deficient. We uphold most aspects of the rule but remand several particulars to the Agency for reconsideration.
On January 18, 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") issued its final rule to control emissions of nitrogen oxide ("NOx") under section 126 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). 42 U.S.C. 7426. Under certain conditions, NOx combines with hydrocarbons in the atmosphere to create ozone, commonly known as "smog." In the January rule, the EPA made final its findings that stationary sources of NOx emissions in twelve upwind states and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in northeastern states. This finding triggers direct federal regulation of stationary sources of NOx in the upwind states. The rule further established a "cap and trade" system for NOx emissions within each upwind jurisdiction. Covered sources must obtain NOx emission allowances to cover their emissions, adopt additional emission controls, or cease operations. Numerous petitions for review challenge various aspects of the rule.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA promulgates national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") for criteria air pollutants, including tropospheric ozone. See 42 U.S.C. 7409. The EPA then designates those areas of the United States that fail to meet the various NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). States, in turn, are required to adopt state implementation plans ("SIPs") providing for the attainment of the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410. The SIPs are submitted to the EPA for approval, and may be revised at the EPA's insistence if found to be inadequate to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS or public health. States that fail to comply with these requirements are subject to various sanctions and the imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan ("FIP"). 42 U.S.C. 7509.
Much air pollution is a local or regional problem. Some pollution, however, is caused or augmented by emissions from other states. Emissions from "upwind" regions may pollute "downwind" regions. Several provisions of the CAA are designed to address such transboundary air pollution. In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act requires states to prohibit emissions within the state in amounts that will "contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State" of the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
CAA section 126 provides a mechanism whereby downwind states may petition the EPA to directly regulate upwind sources of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
...The good neighbor provision recognizes that emissions "from 'upwind' regions may pollute 'downwind' regions." Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1037 (D.C.Cir. 2001). To put it colloquially, the good neighbor provision requires upwind States to bear responsibility for their fair s......
-
North Carolina v. E.P.A.
...showing that it is "innocent of material contributions" to the state's overall downwind pollution. Id.; see Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1050-51 (D.C.Cir.2001). In response to such data, EPA must ensure that the contested area makes a "measurable contribution," Michigan, 213......
-
Mass. v. E.P.A.
...25-26. To disregard the Act's plain text in this way, EPA needs an "extraordinarily convincing justification." Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1041 (D.C.Cir.2001). "For the EPA to avoid a literal interpretation at Chevron step one, it must show either that, as a matter of histo......
-
New Jersey v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...requirements are subject to various sanctions and the imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (‘FIP’)." Appalachian Power Co. v. E.P.A. , 249 F.3d 1032, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7509 ). The new source review ("NSR") provisions of the Act apply to "major" stationary sour......
-
(If) Things Fall Apart: Searching for Optimal Regulatory Solutions to Combating Climate Change Under Title I of the Existing CAA if Congressional Action Fails
...the simple issue of statutory interpretation resolved in NRDC v. Train ” (emphasis added)). 71. See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1041, 31 ELR 20635 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Reading a statute contrary to its seemingly clear meaning is permissible ‘[i]f the literal application of a ......
-
Interstate Air Pollution Control Using Economic-Based Air Pollution Controls
...Steven D. Cook, Analysis Says EPA Rule Will Leave Power Plants without Emission Controls , 37 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 436 (Mar. 3, 2006). 167. 249 F.3d 1032, 31 ELR 20635 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 168. 213 F.3d at 663 . 169. 251 F.3d 1026, 31 ELR 20670 (D.C. Cir 2001) . Interstate Air Pollution Control Us......
-
Environmental crimes.
...as tribal land. Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001). (140.) 42 U.S.C. [section] 7410(a) (2006); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("States, in turn, are required to adopt state implementation plans ('SIPs') providing for the attainment of the NAA......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
...sources;165 sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions limitation 158. Id. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i); see Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding EPA’s authority to directly regulate emissions in “upwind states” when those emissions “contribute significantl......